Key result
A cross-sectional survey of 93 cardio-oncology experts revealed significant heterogeneity in clinical practices regarding prediction, prevention, and management of cardiovascular toxicity.
Why the study?
In cardio-oncology, high-quality evidence is still lacking for managing a range of clinical dilemmas regarding prediction, prevention, and treatment of cardiovascular disease in adult cancer patients.
Cross-Sectional (n=93)
This survey of cardio-oncology experts reveals significant variations in clinical practice regarding the prediction, prevention, and treatment of cardiovascular disease in cancer patients, highlighting the need for high-quality evidence.
Heterogeneous expert practices signal inconsistent cardio-oncology care; leaves open standardization pending prospective trials and guidelines.
BACKGROUND: In cardio-oncology, a range of clinical dilemmas can be identified where high-quality evidence for management is still lacking. The aim of this project was to study clinical practices and expert approaches to several clinical cardio-oncological dilemmas regarding prediction, prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease in adult cancer patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was sent out to internationally renowned experts in the field of cardio-oncology. Participants were selected based on being first or last authors of papers in the field of cardio-oncology, or principal investigators to trials in this field. RESULTS: Topics discussed include, among others, the use of biomarkers for subclinical cardiovascular toxicity, approaches towards primary prevention and follow-up with medication and life-style recommendations, and management of fluoropyrimidine-vasospasm, QTc-prolongation and asymptomatic declines in left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: The answers provided in this survey have shed light on expert-based practices in cardio-oncologic dilemmas. Attitudes towards, as well as discrepancies in those dilemmas are presented. Existing discrepancies clearly indicate the need for generation of high-quality data that allows for more evidence-based recommendations in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hedayati et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardio-oncology clinical practices (n=93). Cardio-oncology clinical dilemmas survey was evaluated on Expert approaches to clinical cardio-oncological dilemmas (prediction, prevention, and treatment). A cross-sectional survey of 93 cardio-oncology experts revealed significant heterogeneity in clinical practices regarding prediction, prevention, and management of cardiovascular toxicity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: